-Caveat Lector-
Why should we stop the
M.A.I.?
MAI stands for
"MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT."
The MAI is being quietly negotiated through the Organization
for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of 29 rich
countries, with no
meaningful debate or input from citizens. The World Trade
Organization calls it
"the constitution of a single global economy." 1 The MAI
would be "open to
accession by all countries,"p11 MAI text with intense
pressure to join. The text
uses deceptive legal language which obscures the
consequences for most
people. "Investor" is broadly defined, but large
corporations would benefit most
because of their size, resources, political and legal clout,
and presence in
many countries.
How would transnational corporations benefit?
AN UNACCOUNTABLE GLOBAL COURT or "effective dispute
settlement procedures."p9 Governments would give their
"unconditional
consent to the submission of a dispute"p63 to this new
global tribunal.
*************************************************************************************With
few exceptions, virtually all our laws, right down to our
local
bylaws, would be subject to the threat of successful
corporate
lawsuits through the
MAI.**********************************************************************************
If investors from other countries which sign
the MAI decided that one of our laws breached the MAI,
including laws
that held them accountable to employees or our
community, they could
sue our government for virtually unlimited damages p62
under an
onerous "expropriationand compensation" clause.p51
Tribunal rulings
would be "final and binding."p67
OUTLAWING LOCAL CONTROL. The MAI would phase out laws
which restrain transnational business, in order to
foster "liberalization of
investment regimes." Our governments would
"rollback"p154 or remove
laws that violated the MAI and achieve "standstill"p152
i.e. not pass
any more laws which, for instance, hinder access to
government
contracts by foreign investors,p31 or give advantage to
domestic firms.
Under "Transparency,"p15 governments would create a
hit-list of all
"non-conforming" laws subject to standstill, rollback,
or potential
investor disputes.
RULES FAVOURING GLOBAL BUSINESS would enforce "national
treatment" (between foreign and domestic investors) and
"most
favoured nation" statusp15 (between foreign investors).
Every foreign
investor could claim "treatment no less favourable"
than that applied to
the most favoured investor, whether domestic or
foreign, in a given
country. Domestic businesses in our high-wage,
democratic countries
would compete directly with foreign investors (i.e. the
transnationals)
which operate or source in low- wage, low-tax regions
ruled by
repressive regimes. The MAI would ban restrictions on
"transfers"p53
of capital or "key personnel."p16 Jobs, plants and
profits could move
anywhere, anytime with no financial penalty. The MAI
would also
prohibit "performance requirements"p19 which require
investors to
buy, source, hire or invest locally, rather than in
low-wage, repressive
regimes.
How would common people benefit from the MAI?
THE MAI DRAFT OFFERS NO BENEFITS FOR NON-INVESTORS. The
preamble just has vague assurances such as "the creation of
employment
opportunities and the improvement of living standards."p9
However, this
sounds unlikely if, for instance, the MAI would ban
"performance
requirements" which encourage job creation or local
investment. Also, the MAI
tribunal would have no provision for governments to sue
foreign
investors,2 i.e. no means to prosecute foreign-based
corporations on
environmental, labour or any other social concerns. The U.S.
Council on
International Business is uncompromising on this: "We will
oppose any and all
measures to create or even imply binding obligations for
governments or
business related to the environment or labour."
Why does our government want this treaty?
THE MAI IS A PRODUCT OF ONGOING GOVERNMENT DECEPTION. MPs
are not being fully informed. Sergio Marchi, Minister for
International Trade,
has allowed only a few little-publicized hearings. He even
claimed "there is no
agreement," that MAI discussions are "preliminary." Yet the
MAI was almost
ratified in May 1997. Now, contrary to media reports, the
MAI is not dead, but
has simply switched to one-on-one negotations to deal with
dissenting OECD
countries. If they sign on, they would be locked in for 20
years.p95 This "would
offend the centuries-old principle... that no government or
parliament tie the
hands of a future parliament." (Bill Blaikie, MP)
You can hold MP's accountable on the MAI
WRITE YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. Try our sample letter
on
the reverse. It challenges MPs to justify their
government's own
proposal: "Who would benefit from each MAI proposal,
and why should
they? Who would bear what costs and risks, and why
should they?" Try
our letter-writing guidelines. Follow up with phone
calls, more letters
and a meeting. Be sure to ask if s/he has a copy of the
MAI draft text.
Without it, your MP cannot claim to be properly
informed.
Write op-eds and letters, especially to community
papers which are
more likely to accept them.
Educate yourself and all your friends about the MAI and
accountability.
Visit our comprehensive website for more information
(below). You can
help hold our government accountable on the MAI, NAFTA and
other
anti-democratic proposals, and reclaim Canada for ALL
Canadians -- not just a
greedy few!
SOURCES: 1. Preamble Collaborative (US); 2. The Corporate
Rule Treaty, Tony Clarke, CCPA
Apr 97; "P" page no's are from the latest draft M.A.I.:
Consolidated Text & Summary, 1 Oct 97
(see our website.) Updated 16 May 1998.
"M.A.I.? Tell us why"
"No answers, no M.A.I.!"
The MAI-Not! Project, OPIRG-Carleton (Ontario Public
Interest Research
Group)
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mai.flora.org/
newsgroup flora.mai-not
1125 Colonel By Drive, Room 326 Unicentre, Carleton
University, Ottawa ON K1S 5B6
(613) 520-2757, fax (613) 520-3989
Nurev Ind Research wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> 9/22/99
>
> The awesome frightening truth about the global economy, the most profoundly
> dangerous aspect of the global economy, is that THERE IS NO ONE IN CONTROL!!
>
> The economy of every nation on the planet has been grafted onto it, and it
> behaves like a loose high pressure hose. What insanity is this?
>
> Joshua2
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Global Economy Inside: Paul Volcker & Third World Views
>
> When There is Little Left for a Radical to Say
>
> By Robin Hahnel
>
> ZNet Commentary
> June 16, 1999
>
> Paul A. Volcker is best known as the conservative, inflation fighting
> Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from
> 1979 through 1987. Prior to that he served Presidents Kennedy, Johnson,
> and Nixon in a variety of capacities. After retiring from the Fed he
> became Chairman of James D. Wolfenson & Co.
> Inc. and is the Henry Kaufman Visiting Professor at New York
> University's Stern School of Business. Paul Volcker is exactly the kind
> of person I would expect to be invited to make the luncheon address to
> the Overseas Development Council Conference on Making Globalization
> Work (March 18, 1999). But I did not expected him to have this to say:
>
> "Everybody talks about globalism these days to the point we are all
> sick of the term. But what has been too little emphasized is that the
> process has lots of problems. Here we are, about a decade after the
> downfall of the old Soviet Union, trumpeting the striking ideological
> triumph of democratic capitalism and open markets. But looking around
> the world right now, things are not so benign."
>
> Since the official "Washington View" of the US Treasury and IMF is that
> neoliberal globalization has produced spectacular global efficiency
> gains that have trickled down to almost everyone, it is surprising to
> hear a high ranking member of the economic establishment admit
> otherwise. Volcker went on to say:
>
> "My position is that the dramatic succession of international financial
> crises is a reflection of deep-seated systemic problems. I do not think
> the pervasiveness of these crises can be traced primarily to particular
> human or institutional failings in the emerging world. Of course, there
> is no doubt such failings exist.
>
> But beyond those particulars, there are destabilizing forces at work,
> forces inherent in the organization (or lack of organization) of the
> international financial system in a world of free capital and money
> markets."
>
> Since the official "Washington View" is that crony capitalism,
> corruption, flawed accounting practices, unsound banking systems, lack
> of transparency, and irresponsible economic policies by governments in
> the affected countries were the causes of their crises, it is
> surprising - and refreshing - to hear an emeritus professor of
> financial regulation admit that the official explanation is total
> hogwash.
>
> "Ponder a bit what went wrong in the emerging market countries. How is
> it, with their weak banking systems, the lack of transparency and their
> lack of accounting standards the emerging countries of Southeast Asia,
> for decades, managed really extraordinary rates of growth - 6,7 or even
> 8 percent a year? Only in the late 1990's have they collapsed in one
> big pile together. What is different now than before?"
>
> How refreshing to encounter a master logician among the cognicente:
>
> When there is a different consequent, look for a different antecedent!
>
> "First of all, international markets are much larger and more fluid
> than ever before. More of the participants have a short-term,
> transaction orientation, and the new technology means they can act
> quickly to move large amounts of funds. What has been less recognized
> and commented upon is how small the financial markets are in most of
> the emerging economies, particularly small relative to the exponential
> growth of the international financial markets. Those small and weak
> financial markets are a reflection of the small and un-diversified
> nature of most of their economies. My favorite example has been
> Argentina where I happened to visit at the time of the Mexican crisis
> and its so-called Tequila effect. I'm supposed to have some familiarity
> with these things, but I was nonetheless startled to learn that the
> aggregate amount of deposits in the Argentine banking system in 1994
> was some $45 billion. At that time, that was about equivalent to the
> size of the second largest bank in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The speed
> with which those small open economies have opened their financial
> markets is really amazing. It mainly is a phenomenon of the 1990's.
> What gives pause is the fact that here, less than a decade later, they
> are in mass distress."
>
> Yes. Even the larger emerging market economies have financial sectors
> that are dwarfed by the explosion of liquid global wealth which has
> become like the proverbial 900 pound gorilla who sits where ever it
> wants. Then, when a derivative tickles, the global wealth gorilla picks
> up its derrier to search for a greener or safer patch leaving economic
> ruin in its wake. But this is Paul Volcker, not Paul Sweezy, dismissing
> the standard explanations for the economic crisis and arguing instead
> that the crisis was caused by nothing more than the predictable
> functioning of unbridled global capitalism itself.
>
> "You, I am sure, are familiar with the general pattern: their economic
> success and enormous potential led to large capital inflows. The
> capital inflows in turn put a rosy glow on their economic cheeks;
> interest rates stayed relatively low; their currencies were strong;
> investment was stimulated and sooner or later a real estate boom and
> excess capacity developed. Then something unexpected comes along, a
> presidential candidate gets assassinated as in Mexico; a currency is
> deemed overvalued, as in Thailand; capital gets frightened because of a
> neighbor's difficulty, as in Indonesia. Then money flows out faster
> than it came in. The exchange rate goes through the floor, interest
> rates skyrocket, and a financial crisis becomes an economic debacle."
>
> How delightfully simple the true explanation of the cause of the global
> financial crisis turns out to be! But Volcker goes on to comment on
> consequences of the crisis that would naturally be of special interest
> to someone with his background: changes in the banking sectors of
> emerging market economies.
>
> "What is happening in the banking sector is striking. Let me return to
> Argentina, that banking market of $45 billion in 1994. I learned this
> morning that it has now become substantially larger; it has perhaps
> reached $80 - 90 billion in four years. But the really important change
> is structural. Today there is only one privately owned bank of any size
> left in Argentina that is not owned or substantially controlled by a
> large foreign bank. We see the same phenomenon at work in Mexico: four
> out of the five largest Mexican banks are owned by, or have substantial
> ownership interests, by foreign banks. Mexico is a country that only a
> few years ago, you will recall, took the position in the NAFTA
> negotiations that "the one thing we want to preserve is Mexican
> ownership of Mexican banks.
>
> That is an essential element of our sovereignty, we must not give it
> up." Two of the largest banks in Korea, which has had a nationally
> insulated banking system heretofore, are now in the process of being
> bought by foreigners. Thailand's financial system is being penetrated
> by foreign ownership. Surprisingly enough even Japan, not exactly a
> small emerging economy, in the midst of all this distress is apparently
> willing to accept some foreign ownership of banks and certainly of
> other financial institutions." This is Paul Volcker, not Fidel Castro,
> pointing out that Western banks have profited from the economic
> distress to amass a global financial empire at a speed that would have
> been unthinkable only two years ago. But while Chairman Volcker leaves
> radicals like myself little to say in some regards, his attitude toward
> what he understands all too well leaves everything to be desired. He
> starts his speech by saying:
>
> "There is no disputing the inevitability and irreversibility of the
> technology that makes it all possible, and I'm not going to deny the
> potential for speeding growth." And he disapproves of governments who
> try to resist the trend:
>
> "I think it is promising that, even with so much financial turbulence,
> countries haven't generally turned inwards. There are only few
> exceptions, and even Malaysia seems to be easing its capital controls.
> That is encouraging."
>
> Paul Volcker will be no Ramsey Clark - who went from being US Attorney
> General and chief law enforcement officer of the US Department of
> Injustice to being one of the most consistent critics and opponents of
> unjust US policies everywhere in the globe for over 30 years since
> leaving office. Volcker is not going to join the 50 Years Is Enough
> Campaign and fight to reverse the tide of corporate sponsored
> globalization. For insights about how to stop globalization from above
> until equitable and sustainable globalization can be built from below
> we will have to look to others. But still... I never thought I'd hear
> Paul Volcker say what he just said!
>
> TFF warmly recommends ZNet Magazine at http://www.zmag.org The
> Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research Vegagatan 25, S
> - 224 57 Lund, Sweden Phone + 46 - 46 - 145909 Fax + 46 - 46 - 144512
> http://www.transnational.org E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
> screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
> and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
> frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
